Quentin Tarantino and Jon Stewart fulfill a common role for today’s cultural “elites”. Both pander to people’s desire to feel erudite, ironic, and “above” the childish sincerity of the past. They (and their followers) want to be seen as smarter than everyone else, but when you push aside the curtain, they protest, “I only make fart noises for a living, what’s your excuse?” Are they really that different from more “intellectual” critics like Jurgen Habermas? I don’t think so.
Nevertheless, Lee Siegel’s takedown of Quentin Tarantino is quite surprising. It is satisfying to see a secular critic finally speak the truth. But one wonders if he realizes that he is shining light on a disease that is a lot bigger than Tarantino. By insisting that criticism must involve more than Tarantino offers, he risks hamstringing the entire modern art criticism industry. Does he not realize that Tarantino, Stewart, and Habermas are the absolute pinnacles of their respective fields of criticism, and that all other critics are pale emulators?
We get it, Mr. Siegel: Tarantino and Stewart are no different from Ham, heaping scorn on Noah’s naked flesh in hopes of gaining approval of his brothers. But you’ve left us hanging. Without encyclopedic regurgitation of meaningless, self-referential facts, and a desperate veneer of false superiority, HOW WILL WE CRITICIZE ART?
In reading Roger Scruton’s “Beauty”, I am struck by how little has changed since the first-century Christians settled in Rome house churches. On the one hand, the devout easily fall prey to smarmy kitsch, and tend to lack depth. This sheltered simple-mindedness can be embarrassing when not coupled with humility. On the other hand, the secular elites start with pride and take some decidedly twisted turns that lurch toward degradation.
No Comments